Slashdot Mirror

Please at least do SOME research.

OK, let's do SOME research, shall we?

The Huge schools with huge expenses make huge money.

Only a small minority of them. How about we listen to the NCAA, who probably knows more about college sports (and is an advocate for them) than just about any organization. Here's what they say.

Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but it has remained relatively consistent through the past decade.

[...] Those 24 schools, at the median, generated about $6 million in net revenue. [...] But those 24 schools are a minority. Many more schools saw their expenses exceed their revenue, requiring their colleges and universities to cover the shortfall. The median FBS school spent $14.7 million to help subsidize its athletics department in 2014, up from a little more than $11 million in 2013. That level of spending isnâ(TM)t unique to FBS schools â" median Football Championship Subdivision and non-football schools spent roughly $11 million to help fund athletics in 2014.

In other words, out of the 128 FBS schools, around 15-20% actually have profitable athletic departments. Overall among Division I schools, athletic departments tend to run a median deficit of $11 million each year.

LSU football for example pays the short fall for ALL other sports.

Yes, in a small minority of programs this is true. Football and sometimes a couple other sports (notably basketball) are frequently somewhat profitable alone in big schools, but athletic departments in general lose money for universities. That's a simple fact.

And it's worse if you look at schools over time. Each year some percentage of schools are profitable, but a report that looked at these schools over a 5-year span found only SEVEN schools that were profitable in the longer term.

And it's getting worse over time. If you read the detailed NCAA report in the link above, you'll find interesting facts like how median generated revenues have increased by 94% since 2004, but total expenses have increased by 121% since 2004.

Basically, college sports have a sort of "arms race" going on. They are increasing expenditures like mad because all schools are, which results in some additional intake in revenue, but the revenue at the vast majority of schools does not keep up. in many states, the highest-paid state employees are college football coaches and assistant coaches, much higher than any politician or any other university official.

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that football programs are self sustaining, and actually through the extended avenues of revenue they have (example, keeping Alumni interested and donating), football programs often contribute TO the schools and help pay teachers, and help support other athletic programs in the school which are not revenue generators.

Uhh...sometimes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/reso...

http://www.cbssports.com/colle...

16 of the top 20 college football programs are revenue positive. Everyone else (300+ schools) is pretty much losing money because of football, mainly because they believe in your incorrect narrative.

Don't bring facts to an ideological fight.

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that football programs are self sustaining, and actually through the extended avenues of revenue they have (example, keeping Alumni interested and donating), football programs often contribute TO the schools and help pay teachers, and help support other athletic programs in the school which are not revenue generators.

Uhh...sometimes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/reso...

http://www.cbssports.com/colle...

16 of the top 20 college football programs are revenue positive. Everyone else (300+ schools) is pretty much losing money because of football, mainly because they believe in your incorrect narrative.

There have been many studies on this, and outside of a few well known programs, they are most definitely not profit centers. Even according to the NCAA own figures

Less than 7 percent of Division I athletics programs had positive net revenue between 2004 and 2010. In the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), only 22 of 120 schools showed positive net revenue for the 2010 fiscal year, eight more than in 2009.

For FBS schools, the median [subsidy] amount was $9.8 million in 2010

The NCAA isn't a "corporation" it's an association. The "crackdown on freedom of speech" includes monitoring to make sure the college student players are not taking money/gifts under the table, discussing drug use or underage alcohol consumption, etc. You know, things that they agree to when they sign up to be non-professional sports player in university.

Yeah, they'll probably also get caught using it for making themselves look better, but in general it's about protecting the (often immature and stupid) players themselves from scandal as much as it is protecting the organization.

See: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation+and+Governance/Eligibility+and+Recruiting/index.html

But I personally haven't heard of major criminal enterprises based on numbers running or football betting causing too much trouble in the united states.

The first is due to governments taking over that industry; ever here of the lottery? Many states have them.
As for sports: http://www.ur.umich.edu/9899/Nov02_98/12.htm This mentions it also: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/current+issues/sports+wagering

... it's not as if the money they make from athletics goes into the chancellor's pocket... it goes to fund the school.. whether better facilities, more classes, or what not.

Wrong. Try doing some research first.

"We continue to conclude that over the medium term (ten years), increases in operating expenditures on football or men's basketball are not associated with any change, on average, in operating net revenue."

Athletic spending breaks even, it doesn't increase school revenue. The money made in athletics goes toward covering the cost of athletics, not adding classes or funding the school in general.

They spend money on Athletics because Athletics makes money...

Another sad but true fact is that a successful sports program brings in a LOT of money from alumni donors... the better a sports team does, the more the alumni will donate to the school.

This is a perfect example of "common sense" that is completely wrong.

How about a real study that examines the issue?

"We continue to conclude that over the medium term (ten years), increases in operating expenditures on football or men's basketball are not associated with any change, on average, in operating net revenue."

In other words, it pays for itself, but does not provide surplus revenue.

"We continue to conclude that increased operating expenditures on football or basketball are not associated with medium-term increases in winning percentages, and higher winning percentages are not associated with medium-term increases in operating revenue or operating net revenue."

Spending more does not help you win or help you make more money (in the medium term).

"We continue to conclude that the hypothesis that increased operating expenditures on sports affect other measurable indicators, including alumni giving, is not proven."

Alumi are *not* donating because of athletics.

Its more than just steroids. Athletes aren't even allowed to have caffeine in NCAA sports. http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/ed_outreach/health-safety/drug_testing/banned_drug_classes.pdf

And we're talking about $508 MILLION per year for television and marketing rights. That might not be a good reason for you, me, or the public, but it's a darn good reason for their bottom line...

i take it you're not a (true) american ...

Its difficult to tell if you are for or against the patent, no competition thing.

Regarding the NCAA, I believe you are misinformed or know something that few do.

From here: http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/about_ncaa/budget_and_ finances/

they at least on the surface seem legit. I'm not much of a sports fan. I'm a geek and an academic, and I believe sports are way overdone in college, but people love college basketball, and the NCAA provides a service to these people by organizing the tournaments and whatnot. People voluntarily dump money to these guys. I mean people love sports. Ever hear how much a 30 second spot during the superbowl is? And companies are more than willing to go out of their way to pay it, and they even _compete_ with the ads nowadays.

You could also look at professional sports as being a very successful marketing campaign. These people are young and dumb and are given all the cash in the world and they are expected to blow it all on bling, where the bling pushers profit. MTV Cribs is no accident, and often shows black athletes that are "successful" with all of their toys and whatnot. I live in an area that has a fairly high black population, and I would assume that these people make less money than I do based on where they live and whatnot, but the toys these guys have. Its as if they are trying to recreate the images shown on MTV videos and on Cribs. I don't see 22" rims nationally advertised anywhere else, do you?

Gamers and people who listen to music are terrorists in the eyes of the ??AA.

You don't mean '??AA'. What you really mean is '[(RI)|(MP)|(GN)]AA'. The NCAA, AIAA, AAAA and NIAA kindly ask that you not lump them in with such filth.

Profitability of a sports program is impossible to figure out, because the pro argument is that a successful sports program attracts students and notoriety to the school and also captures more alumni donations that often make up a good percentage of the school's income. If you were to look only at the accounting books though, you can count all the schools with a truely profitable sports program on one hand and still have some fingers left. The elite Division I-A schools will make money from football and basketball, but this only goes to subsidize the volleyball and tennis and swimming programs along with countless other. Only the top 6% of the I-A schools (i.e. the best of the best) operate in the black. Oh and if you're not Division I-A you're definitely losing money and the sports program is being subsidized.

An excerpt from a study done by the NCAA on the profitability of college sports: "Spending changes had no impact on win-loss records. Or on alumni donations. Or on the academic quality of incoming students (based on SAT scores and the percentage of applicants accepted), an indicator of school stature and appeal" (In reference to spending changes from 1993 to 2001).

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/miscellaneous/1996/19 96111901ms.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-08-14- spending-revenue-study_x.htm

Can you post a link to the times article you cite?

According to this study the average NCAA-1A football program makes money. http://www.ncaa.org/releases/miscellaneous/1996/19 96111901ms.htm

Of course,the study is kind of dated and I realize the source is the NCAA but if you read the results you will see they weren't seemingly biased to make the sports look good.

A slight newer study seems to support these findings: http://www.ncaa.org/releases/research/2000110601re .htm

Another interesting article detailing how schools tend to lose money on athletics: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/other/2003- 08-14-brand-finances_x.htm with an interesting quote:

The study released Thursday paints a sobering picture, noting that only 6% of Division I-A programs operate in the black without school or state subsidies. Brand [the NCAA president, Myles Brand] counts "a dozen or less" of more than 1,000 overall in the NCAA making money.

Based on these articles you can see that NCAA-1AA, NCAA-II, and NCAA-III almost all lose money on every sport on average as do many NCAA-1A teams.

However, when all is said and done college sports are often more about the money. I live in a small city (apx 40,000 people) that is home to an NCAA-1A university. The athletics departments provide a major source of entertainment and pride to the city. Our teams have accomplished alot in the past ten years (both men's and women') with the Mens football team winning 4 bowl games, 4 conference championships in a row, sent a bunch (16 i think) of players to the NFL, and had 2 heisman finalists, and when they were in NCAA-1AA a couple national championship appearances with at least one championship. The mens soccer team has won its conference a couple times and the ladies soccer team has been a strong force in conference play. The womens tennis team has won the conference and sent players to the national tournament. The womens basketball team has also sent a squad to the NCAA "march madness" tournament. All of this has given the city and school a little bit of national attention at times and given the people who live here an added reason to hold their head high when they talk about their home to outsiders. I have only lived here since 1996 and the level of passion the people of this city have for the college sports has been impressive. The school does a service for the people of the community and the students of the University by having sports; to the folks here it is about more than money.

Can you post a link to the times article you cite?

According to this study the average NCAA-1A football program makes money. http://www.ncaa.org/releases/miscellaneous/1996/19 96111901ms.htm

Of course,the study is kind of dated and I realize the source is the NCAA but if you read the results you will see they weren't seemingly biased to make the sports look good.

A slight newer study seems to support these findings: http://www.ncaa.org/releases/research/2000110601re .htm

Another interesting article detailing how schools tend to lose money on athletics: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/other/2003- 08-14-brand-finances_x.htm with an interesting quote:

The study released Thursday paints a sobering picture, noting that only 6% of Division I-A programs operate in the black without school or state subsidies. Brand [the NCAA president, Myles Brand] counts "a dozen or less" of more than 1,000 overall in the NCAA making money.

Based on these articles you can see that NCAA-1AA, NCAA-II, and NCAA-III almost all lose money on every sport on average as do many NCAA-1A teams.

However, when all is said and done college sports are often more about the money. I live in a small city (apx 40,000 people) that is home to an NCAA-1A university. The athletics departments provide a major source of entertainment and pride to the city. Our teams have accomplished alot in the past ten years (both men's and women') with the Mens football team winning 4 bowl games, 4 conference championships in a row, sent a bunch (16 i think) of players to the NFL, and had 2 heisman finalists, and when they were in NCAA-1AA a couple national championship appearances with at least one championship. The mens soccer team has won its conference a couple times and the ladies soccer team has been a strong force in conference play. The womens tennis team has won the conference and sent players to the national tournament. The womens basketball team has also sent a squad to the NCAA "march madness" tournament. All of this has given the city and school a little bit of national attention at times and given the people who live here an added reason to hold their head high when they talk about their home to outsiders. I have only lived here since 1996 and the level of passion the people of this city have for the college sports has been impressive. The school does a service for the people of the community and the students of the University by having sports; to the folks here it is about more than money.

Hatch is trying to pull this off at the same time Congress is debating whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. The NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption, and neither does the NFL. To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is the only group of that sort to have an antitrust exemption, and even that's come up for debate during all those strikes.

A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness. In the context of other "market realities," it simply doesn't make sense. In fact, Congress has taken an active interest in limiting those other "market realities." Seriously, what's the difference between one group controlling all access to recorded music and one group controlling all access to pro football?

Actually, no students pay very little for this stuff. Most of the money comes from grants and other subsudies. The university system is just another state sponsored R&D site.

I would disagree. Students ARE very important. Many private universities are not at all state funded, they are more of a business. If there is sufficient focus on the students, those students will eventually become weathy alumni who fondly remember their college days, and with a substantial gift.

we've shot ourselves in the foot and can barely keep our budget in line now. Research is the lifeblood of the university. Without it, you'd be paying $1000 a credit hour (like most private institutions) instead of the $150 you do now.

It is good policy, and very forward looking of the institution, to focus on the students for this reason. Alumni money is vital.

HOwever, I DO agree that some schools are completely off focus a\nd need to evaluate the balance between students, research, and making money off side businesses. Not that I've never enjoyed a good football game, but anyway, I'm off topic as it is.